Memo to all writers directors and producers who plan on coming out with a time travel movie from this point forward. As of this moment, all time travel logistics must be cleared by me before it goes up on a screen for public consumption. This may seem like a drastic and arbitrary move but after seeing Hot Tub Time Machine this weekend, I've simply had it and I've decided something has to be done. From this point on I am the Great and Exalted Defender of Time Travel Logistics.
Now you're probably wondering “What could this silly comedy have done so egregiously wrong that you are now declaring yourself The Great and Exalted Defender of Time Travel Logistics?” I'm so glad you asked.
The characters get transported back to what we believe is 1986. The strongest indication is that they discover they are at their favorite ski resort for Winterfest '86 so I'm placing it in February 1986. Then we see them flipping through the channels and one of the shows that comes on is Alf which did not come on the air until September 1986. A very minor infraction and one which I was only too happy to overlook. Then a little later they decide to take advantage of their knowledge of past events and make a very daring bet on the Cleveland-Denver football game involving John Elway's legendary performance known as “The Drive”. This game did in fact exist except in took place in January 1987. A little sloppier but I was willing to overlook this as well. Then came the mother of all time travel inaccuracies.
One of the four time travelers is Jacob (Clark Duke) who is introduced earlier as the 20 year-old nephew of Adam (John Cusak). However later we learn that it is at Winterfest '86 where the 20 year old in 2010 is conceived. Anyone sober, conscious, and over the age of seven can see that they aren't even trying to make the time travel stuff make sense. I am willing to shift the brain functioning down a level or two for a movie like this but I can't be expected to carve open my skull with an exacto knife, remove my brain altogether and bury it in the back yard.
My frustration with the idiotic time travel logistics comes not because I didn't like this movie but rather because mostly I did. Strip away the epic fail that is the time missteps and you have a fun, funny movie that is enjoyable to watch. It is like the slightly dimmer and less successful first cousin of The Hangover. Not as sharp but certainly in the ballpark.
Hot Tub Time Machine tells the story of three old friends who now in their 40's have lost touch completely. Adam is going through a painful divorce from a vindictive wife. Nick (The Office's Craig Robinson) is a former musician who is wallowing in a dead-end job and domestic issues of his own percolating. Adam and Nick are reunited at the hospital when they get word that their third amigo Lou (Rob Courdry) is hospitalized after an apparent suicide attempt. Though the friends have not hung out in years, they decide to take a trip together to their old haunt, Codiac Valley Ski resort, in an attempt to cheer up Lou. Joining the group is Adam's aforementioned (ahem) 20 year-old nephew Jacob.
At the resort they get in the hot tub and find themselves back in the 1980's. And here is where the movie seems to stagger and stumble a little bit. It succeeds in having fun with sending up the decade and sharing a laugh with the audience in how silly a lot of it was. Where it struggles though is it doesn't seem to know what kind of genie-out-of-the-bottle movie it wants to be. Once they discover the time travel phenomenon they all make a pact to do things exactly as they did in 1986 as to not introduce the butterfly effect. This is the idea that any slight change they introduce could dramatically affect the future. This leads to funny scene with Nick and a groupie in a hot tub. But eventually they abandon this pact and it becomes every man for himself. While this frees them up for comic misadventures, it also takes away the jeopardy for the characters. What are they now driven to do and what happens if they fail? We don't really know.
Two of the best time travel movies ever were Time After Time (1979) and Back To The Future (1985). Where these movies succeeded is they used the time travel aspect not just as a premise for the movie but as a central driving force of the story. H.G. Wells chases Jack The Ripper back to modern day San Francisco to stop this horrible monster who has been unleashed on an unsuspecting public. Marty McFly must get his parents to fall in love or he will cease to exist. In both cases, the protagonists have very clear missions where failure is simply not an option. I think this movie could have benefited by more careful consideration of what to do with those characters once they were placed in 1986.
And yet this film still has enough charm and laughs to skate by. There is a very funny running gag where Lou insists on seeing how the one-armed bellhop (Back To The Future's Crispin Glover) eventually loses his arm. The relationships between the male characters feel authentic and believable. The bottom line is we enjoy spending time with these guys and this is why the movie works despite its flaws.
And because the movie works I have to ask the question again – how hard would it be to make sure the time travel stuff made sense? Pick a time they go back to (say February 1986) and make sure all pop culture references pre-date that time period. So you show a clip of Miami Vice or Who's The Boss instead of Alf. The bet is on the Bears-Patriots Super Bowl instead of The Drive. Really this isn't rocket science here. But I know, I know. Who went and made me The Great and Exalted Defender of Time Travel Logistics?
Oh yeah, that's right, I did!
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Bounty Hunter
The year is 2148 and students in a film history class are studying a long-dead movie genre that even their parents and grandparents were too young to see in the cinematic story spheres (These replaced movie theatres in 2036). They are told that a century and a half ago people used to pay good money to see this type of cinematic storytelling. But in the early parts of the 21st century, filmmakers eventually murdered this genre, mangling the stories so badly that eventually people stopped going to see them altogether.
“What was this genre called?” one inquisitive student asks aloud.
“They called it the Romantic Comedy,” the instructor offers. “There was a time when these were some of the most finely crafted stories people could see on the screen. Woody Allen paved the way for the genre with Annie Hall. Later more traditional offerings would take the form of When Harry Met Sally, Four Weddings & A Funeral, and Notting Hill. But today we’re going to look at one example of the kind of dreck that killed the genre for good. This type of movie was neither romantic nor funny and seemed basically pointless. Today we’ll be looking at The Bounty Hunter from the year 2010.”
I’ll be honest. I’m not certain if this dystopian future is my biggest fear or greatest wish. But if film historians ever do look back at what killed the romantic comedy, I’m sure they would have a field day with the Bounty Hunter. A movie that seems to be put together by people who have no idea what makes these types of movies great. Director Andy Tennant’s previous credits include (Fool’s Gold, Hitch, Sweet Home Alabama, and Fools Rush In) Perhaps he is on a one man mission to kill the genre by pumping out crappy movies. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start at the beginning.
Unless you’ve been in a post-Olympics coma for the last three weeks, you know that the movie is about a bounty hunter named Milo (Gerard Butler) who has to track down his bail-jumping ex-wife Nicole (Jennifer Aniston) and bring her to jail. Nicole is a reporter who has stumbled upon a suicide that doesn’t add up and she is being pursued by the bad guys who want to silence her for good. This is a decent comedic premise on which you could hang some funny set pieces and solid character development. This movie however boasts none of that.
I don’t think there is one genuine laugh in this entire film. You might laugh at Nicole punching Milo in his junk only to have him chase her down and tackle her in a field. But even if you do, they burn through this nugget in the first 17 seconds of the movie. Almost like a skilled 45’s partner who knows to throw out his only trump early when his partner has taken the bid. You’re basically saying “this is all I got, you’re on your own from here on out.” There are the ubiquitous scenes of Nicole getting away and then getting caught again but there aren’t any real laughs in there.
But I could forgive this movie if it were merely unfunny. It’s biggest sin however is making us sit through a long and torturous romantic subplot which features two people who you don’t care if they get together or not. Seriously, how hard is it to get the audience to root for the ex-lovers to get back together? I’m not sure if they were able to clear this bar. I think they were better off divorced. Not because I think they can’t possibly get along, but rather because I can’t see one reason why they should be together.
Our futuristic film history professor will correctly inform his class that when these genres work, it boasts two people who are destined to be together and are thrown into a wild adventure from which they emerge as better people and overcome those flaws that were keeping them apart. By acquiring the tools to overcome their dire situation, they also acquire the tools to overcome the obstacles in their personal life. In this movie, I don’t know exactly why they got married in the first place and what is now keeping them apart. Apparently he is stubborn and she works a lot. Not really a huge mountain to overcome.
And yet this movie all but abandon’s the jeopardy of being pursued by the bad guys for a huge chunk in the middle as we stay with Milo and Nicole as they “rediscover themselves” as a couple. Just when it seems they are going to spend a romantic night together, there is a misunderstanding over an overheard phone call and the tensions are ratcheted back up. Once again our film studies class will learn that the misunderstanding over an overheard conversation is a device that serves as a sure giveaway you are watching a bad movie.
The climatic scene involving a showdown with the bad guys is underwhelming and frought with tired clichés. Again, we don’t really care what happens at the end. Then there is the question of whether or not Milo will turn Nicole in to the police. Here the filmmakers believe they are being fresh and cute with how they resolve this. I would agree with this is “cute” if "cute" can serve as a synonym for “nauseating”.
Kevin Smith recently tweeted that he really didn’t understand the movie industry until his recent experience with Cop Out. He was basically saying that studios don’t really care about the artistic merits of any particular film as long as they meet a certain box office revenue target for its given budget. Make the target, boast a successful film. This is the only rationale I can see for allowing this movie to be filmed and released. Maybe the star power of Butler and Aniston can turn this into a profitable movie. Because God knows they couldn’t make it a good one.
But don’t take my word for it. Wait for the verdict of a film studies class 138 years from now.
“What was this genre called?” one inquisitive student asks aloud.
“They called it the Romantic Comedy,” the instructor offers. “There was a time when these were some of the most finely crafted stories people could see on the screen. Woody Allen paved the way for the genre with Annie Hall. Later more traditional offerings would take the form of When Harry Met Sally, Four Weddings & A Funeral, and Notting Hill. But today we’re going to look at one example of the kind of dreck that killed the genre for good. This type of movie was neither romantic nor funny and seemed basically pointless. Today we’ll be looking at The Bounty Hunter from the year 2010.”
I’ll be honest. I’m not certain if this dystopian future is my biggest fear or greatest wish. But if film historians ever do look back at what killed the romantic comedy, I’m sure they would have a field day with the Bounty Hunter. A movie that seems to be put together by people who have no idea what makes these types of movies great. Director Andy Tennant’s previous credits include (Fool’s Gold, Hitch, Sweet Home Alabama, and Fools Rush In) Perhaps he is on a one man mission to kill the genre by pumping out crappy movies. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start at the beginning.
Unless you’ve been in a post-Olympics coma for the last three weeks, you know that the movie is about a bounty hunter named Milo (Gerard Butler) who has to track down his bail-jumping ex-wife Nicole (Jennifer Aniston) and bring her to jail. Nicole is a reporter who has stumbled upon a suicide that doesn’t add up and she is being pursued by the bad guys who want to silence her for good. This is a decent comedic premise on which you could hang some funny set pieces and solid character development. This movie however boasts none of that.
I don’t think there is one genuine laugh in this entire film. You might laugh at Nicole punching Milo in his junk only to have him chase her down and tackle her in a field. But even if you do, they burn through this nugget in the first 17 seconds of the movie. Almost like a skilled 45’s partner who knows to throw out his only trump early when his partner has taken the bid. You’re basically saying “this is all I got, you’re on your own from here on out.” There are the ubiquitous scenes of Nicole getting away and then getting caught again but there aren’t any real laughs in there.
But I could forgive this movie if it were merely unfunny. It’s biggest sin however is making us sit through a long and torturous romantic subplot which features two people who you don’t care if they get together or not. Seriously, how hard is it to get the audience to root for the ex-lovers to get back together? I’m not sure if they were able to clear this bar. I think they were better off divorced. Not because I think they can’t possibly get along, but rather because I can’t see one reason why they should be together.
Our futuristic film history professor will correctly inform his class that when these genres work, it boasts two people who are destined to be together and are thrown into a wild adventure from which they emerge as better people and overcome those flaws that were keeping them apart. By acquiring the tools to overcome their dire situation, they also acquire the tools to overcome the obstacles in their personal life. In this movie, I don’t know exactly why they got married in the first place and what is now keeping them apart. Apparently he is stubborn and she works a lot. Not really a huge mountain to overcome.
And yet this movie all but abandon’s the jeopardy of being pursued by the bad guys for a huge chunk in the middle as we stay with Milo and Nicole as they “rediscover themselves” as a couple. Just when it seems they are going to spend a romantic night together, there is a misunderstanding over an overheard phone call and the tensions are ratcheted back up. Once again our film studies class will learn that the misunderstanding over an overheard conversation is a device that serves as a sure giveaway you are watching a bad movie.
The climatic scene involving a showdown with the bad guys is underwhelming and frought with tired clichés. Again, we don’t really care what happens at the end. Then there is the question of whether or not Milo will turn Nicole in to the police. Here the filmmakers believe they are being fresh and cute with how they resolve this. I would agree with this is “cute” if "cute" can serve as a synonym for “nauseating”.
Kevin Smith recently tweeted that he really didn’t understand the movie industry until his recent experience with Cop Out. He was basically saying that studios don’t really care about the artistic merits of any particular film as long as they meet a certain box office revenue target for its given budget. Make the target, boast a successful film. This is the only rationale I can see for allowing this movie to be filmed and released. Maybe the star power of Butler and Aniston can turn this into a profitable movie. Because God knows they couldn’t make it a good one.
But don’t take my word for it. Wait for the verdict of a film studies class 138 years from now.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Green Zone
I had a friend in University named Kate. Amongst Kate’s many endearing quirks was the way she told a story. Nobody told a story quite like Kate. All her stories were filled with urgency and exuberance as if this were the most important story anyone has ever told. She would often burst into a room and say something like, “Oh my God, you would not believe what I just saw. I was walking down the street and there was a guy and he had a big dog.” And just when you were bracing yourself for this incredible reveal like the dog attacked three men or jumped on top of a moving bus or maybe did a soft shoe routine to Puttin’ On The Ritz, it occurs to you that this is the end of the story. There was a guy and he had a big dog – that’s it.
So years went by and just when I became convinced I would never hear a Kate story ever again, I saw Green Zone.
The latest offering by the duo that brought you the last two Bourne offerings (Director Paul Greengrass and leading man Matt Damon) genuinely believes that it has an important story to tell. It has all the markings of an important war movie which also boasts relevant social commentary. Except, in the end, it really doesn’t offer either.
Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller who leads one of the first teams on the ground charged with the responsibility of finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in the early weeks of the 2003 Iraq War. Miller quickly becomes frustrated when all of his attempts to score the big find play out like Geraldo at Al Capone’s vault. In a word – bupkiss. Miller is vocal about his belief that they are acting on shoddy intelligence. His superior reminds him that his job is to execute order, not question them and he is quickly shut down.
One day while executing routine orders, an Iraqi civilian approaches Miller with information that Saddam’s inner circle (but not Saddam himself) is gathering in a house nearby. Miller rounds up his team to see if they can capture these men and get some genuine intelligence on the whereabouts of the WMD’s. They are able to capture some of the men and get a good lead on Saddam’s top general who would be able to give them answers. Just when Miller is about to get the information, a special forces team descends upon the scene and takes the captured Iraqis away from Miller. Miller is pissed and wants to know why they would do this.
He soon learns from a wise old CIA Middle East expert (Brendon Gleeson) that there are some higher-ups who don’t want the mystery of the missing WMD’s solved. Damon must choose between going along with his assignment or breaking off and finding answers to his questions. This is about the point where the movie has my keenest interest. I am intrigued at the prospect of a war film where the forces of antagonism come not from the foreigners but from within a faction of the same side as our protagonist. I am sure that Miller will lead us through a web of political intrigue as we learn new and more shocking revelations. But alas, it goes no deeper.
I will say SPOILER ALERT here although really there is not much to spoil. Miller has his suspicions confirmed that …wait for it…the U.S. government lied about the presence of WMD’s in Iraq. Gasp! At this reveal I wanted to superimpose a clip of Claude Rains from Casablanca so he could announce that he was shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on here! We are made to feel like this revelation should be shocking and mind-blowing. The problem is once Miller has this piece of information, the rest of the movie plays out like another Bourne movie.
Miller has to get to the Iraqi general before the special forces team so he can bring him in and tell the world the truth – that there were never any WMD’s after 1991 and he told the Americans this in the weeks leading up to the war. Miller knows the special forces team wants to kill the general so he can never reveal this truth. So the third act plays out like another generic action movie where it’s a race to see who can get to him first. It’s not terrible but it’s nothing close to the level of political intrigue.
And that is my biggest problem with Green Zone. It wants to come off like it has something important to say but it never does. There are glimpses where it appears like it is trying to. Amy Ryan plays a Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the big story about the WMD program. Miller has a scene with her where he chastises her for accepting the government’s story on the existence of WMD’s without verifying the facts. I think this is fertile grounds in which to explore the notion of journalistic responsibility and the culpability of the media in the days leading up to war. Perhaps if the media were not so intimidated and actually asked the tough questions, it would have been difficult for the U.S. government to sell the phony WMD’s story. But sadly this movie doesn’t explore this notion any further than the aforementioned scene of Miller wrist-slapping.
In the end this movie comes off as preachy about the sanctity of honesty in making the case to go to war. And while it wants to be lauded for taking a tough stand, it strikes me as a more than a bit nauseating. It’s like sitting through a two hour movie whose point is that hot lunches for orphans are a good thing. My question is – where was this movie in 2004 or 2005 when Bush was still popular and people weren’t a hundred percent convinced that the WMD story was a hoax? Coming out with this tough political statement now, in this current political climate, just strikes me as weak.
So if it doesn’t work as a war movie, or political thriller, or action movie or social commentary then what exactly is Green Zone?
Just a story about a guy standing there with a big dog.
So years went by and just when I became convinced I would never hear a Kate story ever again, I saw Green Zone.
The latest offering by the duo that brought you the last two Bourne offerings (Director Paul Greengrass and leading man Matt Damon) genuinely believes that it has an important story to tell. It has all the markings of an important war movie which also boasts relevant social commentary. Except, in the end, it really doesn’t offer either.
Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller who leads one of the first teams on the ground charged with the responsibility of finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in the early weeks of the 2003 Iraq War. Miller quickly becomes frustrated when all of his attempts to score the big find play out like Geraldo at Al Capone’s vault. In a word – bupkiss. Miller is vocal about his belief that they are acting on shoddy intelligence. His superior reminds him that his job is to execute order, not question them and he is quickly shut down.
One day while executing routine orders, an Iraqi civilian approaches Miller with information that Saddam’s inner circle (but not Saddam himself) is gathering in a house nearby. Miller rounds up his team to see if they can capture these men and get some genuine intelligence on the whereabouts of the WMD’s. They are able to capture some of the men and get a good lead on Saddam’s top general who would be able to give them answers. Just when Miller is about to get the information, a special forces team descends upon the scene and takes the captured Iraqis away from Miller. Miller is pissed and wants to know why they would do this.
He soon learns from a wise old CIA Middle East expert (Brendon Gleeson) that there are some higher-ups who don’t want the mystery of the missing WMD’s solved. Damon must choose between going along with his assignment or breaking off and finding answers to his questions. This is about the point where the movie has my keenest interest. I am intrigued at the prospect of a war film where the forces of antagonism come not from the foreigners but from within a faction of the same side as our protagonist. I am sure that Miller will lead us through a web of political intrigue as we learn new and more shocking revelations. But alas, it goes no deeper.
I will say SPOILER ALERT here although really there is not much to spoil. Miller has his suspicions confirmed that …wait for it…the U.S. government lied about the presence of WMD’s in Iraq. Gasp! At this reveal I wanted to superimpose a clip of Claude Rains from Casablanca so he could announce that he was shocked, shocked to find out there is gambling going on here! We are made to feel like this revelation should be shocking and mind-blowing. The problem is once Miller has this piece of information, the rest of the movie plays out like another Bourne movie.
Miller has to get to the Iraqi general before the special forces team so he can bring him in and tell the world the truth – that there were never any WMD’s after 1991 and he told the Americans this in the weeks leading up to the war. Miller knows the special forces team wants to kill the general so he can never reveal this truth. So the third act plays out like another generic action movie where it’s a race to see who can get to him first. It’s not terrible but it’s nothing close to the level of political intrigue.
And that is my biggest problem with Green Zone. It wants to come off like it has something important to say but it never does. There are glimpses where it appears like it is trying to. Amy Ryan plays a Wall Street Journal reporter who broke the big story about the WMD program. Miller has a scene with her where he chastises her for accepting the government’s story on the existence of WMD’s without verifying the facts. I think this is fertile grounds in which to explore the notion of journalistic responsibility and the culpability of the media in the days leading up to war. Perhaps if the media were not so intimidated and actually asked the tough questions, it would have been difficult for the U.S. government to sell the phony WMD’s story. But sadly this movie doesn’t explore this notion any further than the aforementioned scene of Miller wrist-slapping.
In the end this movie comes off as preachy about the sanctity of honesty in making the case to go to war. And while it wants to be lauded for taking a tough stand, it strikes me as a more than a bit nauseating. It’s like sitting through a two hour movie whose point is that hot lunches for orphans are a good thing. My question is – where was this movie in 2004 or 2005 when Bush was still popular and people weren’t a hundred percent convinced that the WMD story was a hoax? Coming out with this tough political statement now, in this current political climate, just strikes me as weak.
So if it doesn’t work as a war movie, or political thriller, or action movie or social commentary then what exactly is Green Zone?
Just a story about a guy standing there with a big dog.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Alice in Wonderland
Perhaps the most enduring image from my experience seeing Tim Burton’s sequel to Alice In Wonderland came not from the movie itself but from what I witnessed as I filed out of the theatre. As I walked by the people lining up for the later show I saw the kind of thing I expected only from Star Wars, Star Trek or Superhero movies – costumed geek-boys (and girls). There was a mad hatter, a girl in a blonde wig and another wearing white rabbit ears. And I remember thinking ‘Does Alice In Wonderland really have that much pop culture street cred?” But as I thought back on the film, it occurred to me that it had to and it probably hurt the film in the long run.
This is not a reboot of a franchise but rather an old fashioned sequel where we see Alice 13 years after she first went down the rabbit hole. Now as a 20 year-old Alice is surprised to find herself at her own engagement party. A stuffy twit named Hamish asks for her hand although it is clear the two have nothing in common. All these years later, she is still full of wonder and enjoys pondering the impossible while he seems to want to chastise her for wasting time thinking about impractical things. Her hesitancy in answering is proposal is further fueled by repeated sightings of a white rabbit dressed in a top coat. There is something very familiar about this rabbit even though she is convinced her previous experience was nothing more than a dream. She chases the rabbit, falls down the rabbit hole and so begins Alice’s new adventure in Wonderland.
Cue Tim Burton.
What works best in Alice in Wonderland is how Burton is able to combine a world already established in classic literature with his own stylistic vision. This film is visually stunning, along with every other film in Burton’s catalog. He portrays Wonderland (the actual name for the place is “Underland”) as a world of hyper realism. Everything and everyone in it is exaggerated. The scary animals are terrifying, the wicked Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is grotesquely evil, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is bizarre in both appearance and behaviour, and the good White Queen (Anne Hatheway) has an almost angelic (with just a hint of goth) in the vibe she gives off. Burton does an excellent job in realizing these characters and making them seem fresh and compelling.
Equally strong as Burton’s direction was the performances of the actors portraying the main characters. Mia Wasikowska plays the 20 year old Alice with the delicate combination of wide-eyed wonder and inner strength. I was most captivated by her when she was in her ordinary world standing out as a fresh voice in a world on conformity. Wasikowska plays her not as a some silly flighty girl but as someone who genuinely has something to say and doesn’t feel anyone around is listening. In wonderland she is able to step up when needed to and make that seem believable.
Johnny Depp is brilliant as the Mad Hatter. It seems likely that Depp and Burton are soul mates from another time and universe. Depp is able to play someone who needs to be over-the-top insane with a humanity that makes the audience genuinely sympathetic to him. In the hands of a lesser actor, the character would be a caricature of the Hatter and certainly less appealing.
Where this movie breaks down however is in the story itself. SPOILER ALERT Shortly after she arrives in Wonderland, Alice learns that her return is no accident that she is brought back at this time. A special day is approaching and it has been foretold that Alice will slay the jabberwocky and this end the Red Queen’s evil reign over Wonderland. They even role out a scroll which contains detailed drawings of Alice battling the dragon-like creature. While this works great to motivate why the residents of Wonderland need to find Alice and bring her back, it tips its hand too much regarding the 3rd act.
The main thrust of the story involves Alice getting to the Red Queen’s castle so she can get a special sword that she will use to slay the jabberwocky. Once she has it and escapes to the White queen’s castles they try to make a big issue of whether or not Alice will step up and slay the beast. But by showing the scroll with the never wrong prophesies, they already ruined that dramatic moment. We know she is going to step and do it so all attempts at Hamlet-esque dithering fall short of the mark.
Beyond that there is a more fundamental flaw in the design of this story. In these type of adventure stories, the “brave new world” adventure needs to inform the protagonist on issues he or she faces back in the real world. In the Wizard of Oz for example, Dorothy is unhappy where she is and would rather be anywhere else. After being whisked away to Oz and going through the adventure, what great lesson does she take away from it? There’s no place like home.
In this story, there doesn’t seem to be any connection between the adventure she undertakes and the impact it has on her real life. She doesn’t have to physically best a dragon to know she shouldn’t marry Hamish and instead go on and live a fulfilling life on her own terms. The writer makes this painfully obvious from the opening scenes of the movie. And her life’s decision at the end can’t be traced back to any life lesson she picked up in her second adventure in Wonderland. The jabberwocky scene seems placed there because with the special effects capability Burton has at his disposal, they can’\t resist a drawn out battle. They want to turn Alice into a Laura Croft type at the end of this film. It doesn’t seem to fit in any way.
To the degree this movie works, it is only because of the classic material it uses at a starting point. But the real test is – would this story have been successful if it was released as an original piece today> Sadly, I believe the answer is no. Had it been an original piece more work would have to have gone into making the story work on several levels. But this work wasn’t done likely because they knew they didn’t have to. They could release a fairly flashy yet flat movie and what would be the result? Fanboys and Fangirls lined up and dressed as their favorite characters.
The blessing and the curse of doing a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.
This is not a reboot of a franchise but rather an old fashioned sequel where we see Alice 13 years after she first went down the rabbit hole. Now as a 20 year-old Alice is surprised to find herself at her own engagement party. A stuffy twit named Hamish asks for her hand although it is clear the two have nothing in common. All these years later, she is still full of wonder and enjoys pondering the impossible while he seems to want to chastise her for wasting time thinking about impractical things. Her hesitancy in answering is proposal is further fueled by repeated sightings of a white rabbit dressed in a top coat. There is something very familiar about this rabbit even though she is convinced her previous experience was nothing more than a dream. She chases the rabbit, falls down the rabbit hole and so begins Alice’s new adventure in Wonderland.
Cue Tim Burton.
What works best in Alice in Wonderland is how Burton is able to combine a world already established in classic literature with his own stylistic vision. This film is visually stunning, along with every other film in Burton’s catalog. He portrays Wonderland (the actual name for the place is “Underland”) as a world of hyper realism. Everything and everyone in it is exaggerated. The scary animals are terrifying, the wicked Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) is grotesquely evil, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is bizarre in both appearance and behaviour, and the good White Queen (Anne Hatheway) has an almost angelic (with just a hint of goth) in the vibe she gives off. Burton does an excellent job in realizing these characters and making them seem fresh and compelling.
Equally strong as Burton’s direction was the performances of the actors portraying the main characters. Mia Wasikowska plays the 20 year old Alice with the delicate combination of wide-eyed wonder and inner strength. I was most captivated by her when she was in her ordinary world standing out as a fresh voice in a world on conformity. Wasikowska plays her not as a some silly flighty girl but as someone who genuinely has something to say and doesn’t feel anyone around is listening. In wonderland she is able to step up when needed to and make that seem believable.
Johnny Depp is brilliant as the Mad Hatter. It seems likely that Depp and Burton are soul mates from another time and universe. Depp is able to play someone who needs to be over-the-top insane with a humanity that makes the audience genuinely sympathetic to him. In the hands of a lesser actor, the character would be a caricature of the Hatter and certainly less appealing.
Where this movie breaks down however is in the story itself. SPOILER ALERT Shortly after she arrives in Wonderland, Alice learns that her return is no accident that she is brought back at this time. A special day is approaching and it has been foretold that Alice will slay the jabberwocky and this end the Red Queen’s evil reign over Wonderland. They even role out a scroll which contains detailed drawings of Alice battling the dragon-like creature. While this works great to motivate why the residents of Wonderland need to find Alice and bring her back, it tips its hand too much regarding the 3rd act.
The main thrust of the story involves Alice getting to the Red Queen’s castle so she can get a special sword that she will use to slay the jabberwocky. Once she has it and escapes to the White queen’s castles they try to make a big issue of whether or not Alice will step up and slay the beast. But by showing the scroll with the never wrong prophesies, they already ruined that dramatic moment. We know she is going to step and do it so all attempts at Hamlet-esque dithering fall short of the mark.
Beyond that there is a more fundamental flaw in the design of this story. In these type of adventure stories, the “brave new world” adventure needs to inform the protagonist on issues he or she faces back in the real world. In the Wizard of Oz for example, Dorothy is unhappy where she is and would rather be anywhere else. After being whisked away to Oz and going through the adventure, what great lesson does she take away from it? There’s no place like home.
In this story, there doesn’t seem to be any connection between the adventure she undertakes and the impact it has on her real life. She doesn’t have to physically best a dragon to know she shouldn’t marry Hamish and instead go on and live a fulfilling life on her own terms. The writer makes this painfully obvious from the opening scenes of the movie. And her life’s decision at the end can’t be traced back to any life lesson she picked up in her second adventure in Wonderland. The jabberwocky scene seems placed there because with the special effects capability Burton has at his disposal, they can’\t resist a drawn out battle. They want to turn Alice into a Laura Croft type at the end of this film. It doesn’t seem to fit in any way.
To the degree this movie works, it is only because of the classic material it uses at a starting point. But the real test is – would this story have been successful if it was released as an original piece today> Sadly, I believe the answer is no. Had it been an original piece more work would have to have gone into making the story work on several levels. But this work wasn’t done likely because they knew they didn’t have to. They could release a fairly flashy yet flat movie and what would be the result? Fanboys and Fangirls lined up and dressed as their favorite characters.
The blessing and the curse of doing a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.
Friday, March 12, 2010
She's Out of My League
There is a scene in She’s Out of My League where the average guy Kirk (Jay Baruchel) and the blonde knock-out Molly (Alice Eve) are in her parents place enjoying some quality alone time early in their relationship. Their make-out session is passionate and intense and while he suggests they slow it down a bit, she presses on. (so to speak) Then in the scene’s “climactic” (last one, I promise) moment, he is hit with the sudden and unmistakable realization that he may have been enjoying it a bit too much for his own good. Her parents arrive and the scene delivers on some decent cringe-worthy humour. But more than that, this sequence serves as a metaphor for how this movie made me feel when I left the theatre.
Please, let me explain.
I had high hopes for this movie. I went into it with the expectations of achieving full narrative satisfaction by the end of it. And while it had its moments and was not at all an unpleasant experience, it still left me feeling somewhat unsatisfied. There is a really good movie in there somewhere but this time out, it just didn’t bring its “A” game.
Now that I’ve sufficiently and uncomfortably driven that metaphor into the ground, let’s move on.
I like Baruchel in just about everything he’s done up to this point and he doesn’t disappoint here. As Kirk, he brings and intelligence and warmth to a character which could easily come off as pathetic. Kirk is an airport security guy who lacks a great deal of self-confidence. Our first image of Kirk is him pleading to his “girlfriend” that while they’ve both benefited by their two years of “off time” from their relationship, he believes it’s time for some “on time”. This despite the fact that his girlfriend has a new boyfriend, both of whom have been all but adopted by Kirk’s parents.
Alice Eve is equally adept in her performance as Molly, the stunningly beautiful young woman who still comes off sweet and likable. It’s not that Molly doesn’t know she’s beautiful. She just seems completely at ease about it. When she’s invited to join Kirk’s family for a swim she tells them she doesn’t have a bathing suit. When they encourage her to swim in her underwear, she tells them with great glee that she is not wearing any. This makes her seem even sexier to the guys in the scene and us as the audience. The filmmakers seem to understand the universal truth that there is nothing quite as sexy as someone who is comfortable in their own skin. Of course they hedge their bets by showing off Molly’s body in a manner I haven’t seen since Jessica Rabbit.
Perhaps even stronger than the leads were the supporting cast, particularly Kirk’s family. I’ve mentioned before that thriller suspense movies are only as strong as the heavy. An addendum to this is that romantic comedies are only as strong as the supporting players (i.e.. Ilsa Fisher in Wedding Crashers). Here, Lindsey Sloane as his ex, Marnie, and Kyle Bornheimer as Kirk's obnoxious brother Dylan serve beautifully as foils to Kirks attempts to have a normal relationship with Molly. Also standing in the way is Kirk’s best friend Stainer (T.J. Miller) who puts it in Kirk’s head that she is too hot for him and it will never work.
So, I liked the leads, loved the supporting cast, what’s wrong with this movie? They do a nice job of setting up the Kirk and Molly dating situation but they don’t know what to do with them once they’re there. The scene I mentioned off the top, and its aftermath, represents the only believable jeopardy for this relationship. They introduce Molly’s jet-flying ex-boyfriend Cam but this falls well short of the intended target. Cam thinks Kirk is nothing more than Molly’s gay BFF and when he is set straight, he goes away and is never heard from again. And with him goes some dramatic plot points that this movie sorely needed.
They only thing keeping the lovers apart is Kirk doesn’t believe he is good enough for Molly. And Molly makes an admission as to why she wanted to date Kirk in the first place which is supposed to be a major revelation but is less than earth-shaking. So without anything significant really keeping them apart, it doesn’t take much to bring them back together. The third act is sloppy and erratic and stands out as a disappointment considering everything that came before it.
There is a lot to like in this movie. It is not a laugh out loud riot like say Wedding Crashers or The Hangover but it has its share of funny moments. We enjoy spending time with Kirk and Molly whenever they are on the screen. It’s just…how do you describe an experience that promises so much but just doesn’t deliver the big finish at the very end?
Ah yes...anti-climactic.
(I lied. THAT is the last one)
Please, let me explain.
I had high hopes for this movie. I went into it with the expectations of achieving full narrative satisfaction by the end of it. And while it had its moments and was not at all an unpleasant experience, it still left me feeling somewhat unsatisfied. There is a really good movie in there somewhere but this time out, it just didn’t bring its “A” game.
Now that I’ve sufficiently and uncomfortably driven that metaphor into the ground, let’s move on.
I like Baruchel in just about everything he’s done up to this point and he doesn’t disappoint here. As Kirk, he brings and intelligence and warmth to a character which could easily come off as pathetic. Kirk is an airport security guy who lacks a great deal of self-confidence. Our first image of Kirk is him pleading to his “girlfriend” that while they’ve both benefited by their two years of “off time” from their relationship, he believes it’s time for some “on time”. This despite the fact that his girlfriend has a new boyfriend, both of whom have been all but adopted by Kirk’s parents.
Alice Eve is equally adept in her performance as Molly, the stunningly beautiful young woman who still comes off sweet and likable. It’s not that Molly doesn’t know she’s beautiful. She just seems completely at ease about it. When she’s invited to join Kirk’s family for a swim she tells them she doesn’t have a bathing suit. When they encourage her to swim in her underwear, she tells them with great glee that she is not wearing any. This makes her seem even sexier to the guys in the scene and us as the audience. The filmmakers seem to understand the universal truth that there is nothing quite as sexy as someone who is comfortable in their own skin. Of course they hedge their bets by showing off Molly’s body in a manner I haven’t seen since Jessica Rabbit.
Perhaps even stronger than the leads were the supporting cast, particularly Kirk’s family. I’ve mentioned before that thriller suspense movies are only as strong as the heavy. An addendum to this is that romantic comedies are only as strong as the supporting players (i.e.. Ilsa Fisher in Wedding Crashers). Here, Lindsey Sloane as his ex, Marnie, and Kyle Bornheimer as Kirk's obnoxious brother Dylan serve beautifully as foils to Kirks attempts to have a normal relationship with Molly. Also standing in the way is Kirk’s best friend Stainer (T.J. Miller) who puts it in Kirk’s head that she is too hot for him and it will never work.
So, I liked the leads, loved the supporting cast, what’s wrong with this movie? They do a nice job of setting up the Kirk and Molly dating situation but they don’t know what to do with them once they’re there. The scene I mentioned off the top, and its aftermath, represents the only believable jeopardy for this relationship. They introduce Molly’s jet-flying ex-boyfriend Cam but this falls well short of the intended target. Cam thinks Kirk is nothing more than Molly’s gay BFF and when he is set straight, he goes away and is never heard from again. And with him goes some dramatic plot points that this movie sorely needed.
They only thing keeping the lovers apart is Kirk doesn’t believe he is good enough for Molly. And Molly makes an admission as to why she wanted to date Kirk in the first place which is supposed to be a major revelation but is less than earth-shaking. So without anything significant really keeping them apart, it doesn’t take much to bring them back together. The third act is sloppy and erratic and stands out as a disappointment considering everything that came before it.
There is a lot to like in this movie. It is not a laugh out loud riot like say Wedding Crashers or The Hangover but it has its share of funny moments. We enjoy spending time with Kirk and Molly whenever they are on the screen. It’s just…how do you describe an experience that promises so much but just doesn’t deliver the big finish at the very end?
Ah yes...anti-climactic.
(I lied. THAT is the last one)
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Shutter Island
Me: Knock Knock.
You: Who’s there?
Me: Interrupting Cow.
You: Interrupting Co-
Me: (cutting you off) Mooooooo!
I told this joke to my eight year old nephew Jackson and my buddy Bruce last year. Jackson thought it was funny. Bruce thought it was hysterical and laughed uncontrollably for ten minutes. What conclusions can we draw from this? (1) Bruce has the sophisticated sense of humour of a grade schooler and (2) neither of them had heard this joke before. I can deduce this because if they had heard the joke before it would be nearly impossible to genuinely find it funny. A joke like this can only be funny if you don’t know what the punch line is going to be.
This same principle comes in to play with Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island, a dark and creepy nod to classic noir films of the past. I should note that there will be some small and big spoilers contained in this posting and the first small one is about to come right now. So if you haven’t seen it and want to see it completely fresh, stop reading right now. Are we good? Okay.
Shutter Island is a psychological thriller that relies on a big twist at the end to deliver its dramatic punch. Many people have written in to Roger Ebert and others like him complaining that this twist was blindsiding and ruined the movie experience for them. I can’t say whether I agree because I feel like Scorsese didn’t do a good enough job disguising the twist. I guessed it four minutes into film. So instead of a gripping engaging thriller, for me it played out like the world’s longest Knock Knock joke I’d heard many times before.
Shutter Island is a film that makes you question the veracity of what you’re seeing the whole time. We are introduced to Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) a U.S. Marshall who, along with his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo), is dispatched to an asylum for the criminally insane on an Island in Boston Harbour in 1954. They are launching an investigation into the disappearance of one of the patients. Teddy and Chuck have the somewhat limited co-operation of the people in charge of the facility including the head psychiatrist at the facility Dr. Cawley, played impressively by Sir Ben Kingsley. At a time when most of the patients are dealt with through primitive and barbaric treatments like lobotomies and the like, Dr. Cawley is pioneering a bold new program where they bring seriously delusional people back to sanity by indulging their delusions. Cawley and his staff play along, so speak, in the hopes of bringing the patients back to a state of reality.
During Teddy and Chuck’s investigation, we start to see flashbacks to Teddy’s previous war experiences, including one where he is one of the first on the scene at a Nazi concentration camp in Poland. Teddy appears to be suffering from PTSD although nobody would have diagnosed that at the time. This is not the only horrific events Teddy has to deal with. The escaped inmate is a woman who drowned all three of her kids in a lake near her house. This seems to only further trigger’s Teddy psychological trauma as it brings back stronger and more haunting flashbacks.
I think Martin Scorsese deserves a lot of credit for creating the dark and creepy atmosphere that envelops this film. The cinematography is done so everything seems dramatically under lit so much of the action exists in the shadows. This is contrasted nicely with how the film looks after the climax. When you know how the film ends this difference in the look and clarity of the image makes sense. But alas it is in the big reveal where the film falls apart for me.
MAJOR SPOLIER WARNING HERE
I am about to discuss the big twist in Shutter Island. If you don’t want the movie ruined do not read any further. I’m serious…are you ready? Okay.
Leonardo DiCaprio is dreamy and you will get lost in his eyes. Okay, this is not the actual spoiler but I was just testing to see if you would keep reading. Now, for real, here is the spoiler for this movie…proceed at your own risk.
Four minutes into the movie when they first mention that they are going to an asylum for the criminally insane I thought “I’ll bet Leo is one of the inmates” Then when Sir Ben goes to great lengths to explain that his process is to indulge inmates in their delusions I thought “Well there we go”. The woman who killed her children was not a patient but Teddy’s clinically depressed wife whom he killed after the incident. Unable to deal with the realities of what happened Teddy was sent to Shutter island where he lives constantly under the delusions that he is a Marshall again and investigating a big case at the asylum.
After Sir Ben confirmed my suspicions, I spent the remaining 115 minutes with the knowledge of what the big reveal would be. And if I figured it out, I’ll bet there are countless others who did the same.
The fact is that today’s movie-going audiences are more sophisticated than they were 10 or 15 years ago. Shutter Island tries to mine the same territory The Sixth Sense did more than a decade ago. At that time audiences were fooled even though the kid comes right and says “I see dead people only they don’t know there dead”. Today, most people would hear that and think “Bruce Willis is dead”. This is the major failing of Shutter Island. If you are able guess the twist, the movie just can’t deliver the suspense it needs to in order to be successful. What do you end up with instead?
Knock Knock.
You: Who’s there?
Me: Interrupting Cow.
You: Interrupting Co-
Me: (cutting you off) Mooooooo!
I told this joke to my eight year old nephew Jackson and my buddy Bruce last year. Jackson thought it was funny. Bruce thought it was hysterical and laughed uncontrollably for ten minutes. What conclusions can we draw from this? (1) Bruce has the sophisticated sense of humour of a grade schooler and (2) neither of them had heard this joke before. I can deduce this because if they had heard the joke before it would be nearly impossible to genuinely find it funny. A joke like this can only be funny if you don’t know what the punch line is going to be.
This same principle comes in to play with Martin Scorsese’s Shutter Island, a dark and creepy nod to classic noir films of the past. I should note that there will be some small and big spoilers contained in this posting and the first small one is about to come right now. So if you haven’t seen it and want to see it completely fresh, stop reading right now. Are we good? Okay.
Shutter Island is a psychological thriller that relies on a big twist at the end to deliver its dramatic punch. Many people have written in to Roger Ebert and others like him complaining that this twist was blindsiding and ruined the movie experience for them. I can’t say whether I agree because I feel like Scorsese didn’t do a good enough job disguising the twist. I guessed it four minutes into film. So instead of a gripping engaging thriller, for me it played out like the world’s longest Knock Knock joke I’d heard many times before.
Shutter Island is a film that makes you question the veracity of what you’re seeing the whole time. We are introduced to Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) a U.S. Marshall who, along with his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo), is dispatched to an asylum for the criminally insane on an Island in Boston Harbour in 1954. They are launching an investigation into the disappearance of one of the patients. Teddy and Chuck have the somewhat limited co-operation of the people in charge of the facility including the head psychiatrist at the facility Dr. Cawley, played impressively by Sir Ben Kingsley. At a time when most of the patients are dealt with through primitive and barbaric treatments like lobotomies and the like, Dr. Cawley is pioneering a bold new program where they bring seriously delusional people back to sanity by indulging their delusions. Cawley and his staff play along, so speak, in the hopes of bringing the patients back to a state of reality.
During Teddy and Chuck’s investigation, we start to see flashbacks to Teddy’s previous war experiences, including one where he is one of the first on the scene at a Nazi concentration camp in Poland. Teddy appears to be suffering from PTSD although nobody would have diagnosed that at the time. This is not the only horrific events Teddy has to deal with. The escaped inmate is a woman who drowned all three of her kids in a lake near her house. This seems to only further trigger’s Teddy psychological trauma as it brings back stronger and more haunting flashbacks.
I think Martin Scorsese deserves a lot of credit for creating the dark and creepy atmosphere that envelops this film. The cinematography is done so everything seems dramatically under lit so much of the action exists in the shadows. This is contrasted nicely with how the film looks after the climax. When you know how the film ends this difference in the look and clarity of the image makes sense. But alas it is in the big reveal where the film falls apart for me.
MAJOR SPOLIER WARNING HERE
I am about to discuss the big twist in Shutter Island. If you don’t want the movie ruined do not read any further. I’m serious…are you ready? Okay.
Leonardo DiCaprio is dreamy and you will get lost in his eyes. Okay, this is not the actual spoiler but I was just testing to see if you would keep reading. Now, for real, here is the spoiler for this movie…proceed at your own risk.
Four minutes into the movie when they first mention that they are going to an asylum for the criminally insane I thought “I’ll bet Leo is one of the inmates” Then when Sir Ben goes to great lengths to explain that his process is to indulge inmates in their delusions I thought “Well there we go”. The woman who killed her children was not a patient but Teddy’s clinically depressed wife whom he killed after the incident. Unable to deal with the realities of what happened Teddy was sent to Shutter island where he lives constantly under the delusions that he is a Marshall again and investigating a big case at the asylum.
After Sir Ben confirmed my suspicions, I spent the remaining 115 minutes with the knowledge of what the big reveal would be. And if I figured it out, I’ll bet there are countless others who did the same.
The fact is that today’s movie-going audiences are more sophisticated than they were 10 or 15 years ago. Shutter Island tries to mine the same territory The Sixth Sense did more than a decade ago. At that time audiences were fooled even though the kid comes right and says “I see dead people only they don’t know there dead”. Today, most people would hear that and think “Bruce Willis is dead”. This is the major failing of Shutter Island. If you are able guess the twist, the movie just can’t deliver the suspense it needs to in order to be successful. What do you end up with instead?
Knock Knock.
The Best Year For Oscar
The Academy Awards Roundtable is back by popular demand. I mean sure I just posted it 10 hours ago and we've received no comments on it yet but I have to assume everyone has read it and is clamoring for more. David wanted to know our opinion on the strongest Best Picture field ever. My first reaction was "That's personal and quite frankly none of your business!" But then I realized it could make for an interesting discussion. Let the debate begin.
David: Here's a question – what in your opinion was the Best Oscar year? In other words – the year with the highest number of quality pictures nominated for Best Picture.
Tony: Excellent question. For me the year has to have boasted five films that were all strong and have withstood the test of time. One weak sister in the group and it is no good. Case in point, the 1983 ceremonies nominated, Ghandi (Winner), ET, The Verdict and Tootsie. All incredibly strong. But the 5th that year was Missing which is pretty much a forgotten film. For my money I have to go with the 1995 ceremonies which had: Forrest Gump, Quiz Show, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp fiction and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Those are five classics which still stand up 15 years later.
Andre: I'd argue that the worst Best Picture year was in '77, for the '76 films. Network. All The President's Men. TAXI DRIVER. And your winner... Rocky. Going back, look at '67. In The Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Doctor Dolittle, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Strong field.
David: The years you both mention are ones I might have suggested. Incredible nominations.
I agree with Andre, that Best Picture Rocky really was the weakest of the bunch, And I Best Picture Forrest Gump was the weakest of its bunch too. Here is a case where two “popular” and “uplifting” films beat out darker, more challenging, and more artistic films. There were many years in every decade where this happened, so it’s not just these years.
Did voters in 1976/77 seriously think that Rocky was better than All the Presidents Men, Bound for Glory, Network and Taxi Driver? Was it a reaction to Vietnam and Watergate? The losing films all looked at the darker side of America, while Rocky was the fantasy that is the American Dream.
Did voters in 1994/95 think Forrest Gump was better than Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, and Four Weddings and a Funeral? With the exception of Four Weddings, the other three losers again looked at the darker side of life. Whereas Forrest, like Rocky, was a fantasy of the American dream, where the simpleton succeeds despite the odds against him.
1939 was an incredible year that included Best Picture nominees like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Mr.Smith Goes to Washingston, Stagecoach, Goodybe Mr.Chips – and five other films because it was a ten nominee year. Even though all those five are classics, as are a few of the rest of the ten, I won’t officially use that as my pick and instead go with the five nominees year of 1975 were the Best Picture nominees were One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Barry Lyndon, Nashville, Dog Day Afternoon, and a little picture known as Jaws.
Andre: To be clear, 76 was a weak Best Picture year only in the sense that there were so many strong nominees, and the winner was a poor choice or the weakest movie in the field. That happens more and more now that campaigning is such a big part of the Oscars. I defy you to tell me in all seriousness that Shakespeare in Love is a better film than Saving Private Ryan. Sure, seeing Gwyneth Paltrow naked is a plus in any film, but that pales in comparison to a recreation of the freakin'
invasion of Normandy.
Tony: Now if you could somehow combine the two in "Saving Private Shakespeare" where a half naked Gwyneth Paltrow storms the beaches of Normandy then sets off in search of Ben Affleck's British accent, I think you have Oscar gold!
David Is it just me or is Gwyneth more fetching since she got older and put on some weight? She didn’t do much for me when she was in her twenties but she was absolutely smokin’ in Iron Man.
Tony No argument here.
David Don't get me started on Saving Private Ryan. Not saying SIL is better, just that Ryan is very flawed story-wise. Brilliant re-creation of Normandy, can see why Spielberg got Best Director. But the actual story doesn't start until 40 minutes into the movie -- no other director would have been allowed to do that -- in the forties -- the Normandy sequence would be over in 15 minutes. And then there are so many plot problems, such as the old guy at the beginning who remembers the journey to save Ryan turns out to be Ryan himself at the end who not only was not on the journey to rescue himself but at no time did Tom Hanks have an opportunity to tell him about it. Lazy story-telling. Which is a surprise for Spielberg, go back and look at how tight his early films like Jaws and Close Encounters are story-wise.
Tony: An excellent point. I have to admit, that had not occurred to me before. How did Ryan know all the details of the journey?
Andre: Clearly, David hates our troops and cannot be trusted.
David: Here's a question – what in your opinion was the Best Oscar year? In other words – the year with the highest number of quality pictures nominated for Best Picture.
Tony: Excellent question. For me the year has to have boasted five films that were all strong and have withstood the test of time. One weak sister in the group and it is no good. Case in point, the 1983 ceremonies nominated, Ghandi (Winner), ET, The Verdict and Tootsie. All incredibly strong. But the 5th that year was Missing which is pretty much a forgotten film. For my money I have to go with the 1995 ceremonies which had: Forrest Gump, Quiz Show, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp fiction and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Those are five classics which still stand up 15 years later.
Andre: I'd argue that the worst Best Picture year was in '77, for the '76 films. Network. All The President's Men. TAXI DRIVER. And your winner... Rocky. Going back, look at '67. In The Heat of the Night, Bonnie and Clyde, The Graduate, Doctor Dolittle, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Strong field.
David: The years you both mention are ones I might have suggested. Incredible nominations.
I agree with Andre, that Best Picture Rocky really was the weakest of the bunch, And I Best Picture Forrest Gump was the weakest of its bunch too. Here is a case where two “popular” and “uplifting” films beat out darker, more challenging, and more artistic films. There were many years in every decade where this happened, so it’s not just these years.
Did voters in 1976/77 seriously think that Rocky was better than All the Presidents Men, Bound for Glory, Network and Taxi Driver? Was it a reaction to Vietnam and Watergate? The losing films all looked at the darker side of America, while Rocky was the fantasy that is the American Dream.
Did voters in 1994/95 think Forrest Gump was better than Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, and Four Weddings and a Funeral? With the exception of Four Weddings, the other three losers again looked at the darker side of life. Whereas Forrest, like Rocky, was a fantasy of the American dream, where the simpleton succeeds despite the odds against him.
1939 was an incredible year that included Best Picture nominees like The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Mr.Smith Goes to Washingston, Stagecoach, Goodybe Mr.Chips – and five other films because it was a ten nominee year. Even though all those five are classics, as are a few of the rest of the ten, I won’t officially use that as my pick and instead go with the five nominees year of 1975 were the Best Picture nominees were One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Barry Lyndon, Nashville, Dog Day Afternoon, and a little picture known as Jaws.
Andre: To be clear, 76 was a weak Best Picture year only in the sense that there were so many strong nominees, and the winner was a poor choice or the weakest movie in the field. That happens more and more now that campaigning is such a big part of the Oscars. I defy you to tell me in all seriousness that Shakespeare in Love is a better film than Saving Private Ryan. Sure, seeing Gwyneth Paltrow naked is a plus in any film, but that pales in comparison to a recreation of the freakin'
invasion of Normandy.
Tony: Now if you could somehow combine the two in "Saving Private Shakespeare" where a half naked Gwyneth Paltrow storms the beaches of Normandy then sets off in search of Ben Affleck's British accent, I think you have Oscar gold!
David Is it just me or is Gwyneth more fetching since she got older and put on some weight? She didn’t do much for me when she was in her twenties but she was absolutely smokin’ in Iron Man.
Tony No argument here.
David Don't get me started on Saving Private Ryan. Not saying SIL is better, just that Ryan is very flawed story-wise. Brilliant re-creation of Normandy, can see why Spielberg got Best Director. But the actual story doesn't start until 40 minutes into the movie -- no other director would have been allowed to do that -- in the forties -- the Normandy sequence would be over in 15 minutes. And then there are so many plot problems, such as the old guy at the beginning who remembers the journey to save Ryan turns out to be Ryan himself at the end who not only was not on the journey to rescue himself but at no time did Tom Hanks have an opportunity to tell him about it. Lazy story-telling. Which is a surprise for Spielberg, go back and look at how tight his early films like Jaws and Close Encounters are story-wise.
Tony: An excellent point. I have to admit, that had not occurred to me before. How did Ryan know all the details of the journey?
Andre: Clearly, David hates our troops and cannot be trusted.
The Academy Awards Roundtable
I have to admit I love the Academy Awards and nothing can dampen my enthusiasm for them. If Rob Lowe singing to Snow White didn't turn me off for good, then you know I am a true fan. Perhaps even more than watching the Oscars, I love the debate the inevitably leads up to the Awards Ceremony each year. This year I decided to corral the two sharpest movie minds I know (not named Rebekah) and engaged in some spirited debate about who will and should win Sunday night. Joining me in my discussions are:
David Widdicombe – An award winning screenwriter and film director from Toronto.
Andre Theriault – Lives in Fredericton, life long cinefile, keen observer of popular culture and my partner in the annual Only Fabulous Oscar Party Thrown By Two Straight Guys.
Tony: Guys, welcome to the roundtable and thank you for joining me.
David and Andre: Thank you for having us, Tony. It is the highest honour simply to be discussing films in your presence (Ed. Note – I am assuming this is what they would say at this point so this isn't an exact quote)
BEST PICTURE
Tony: If you had asked me two months ago I would have said Avatar but right now I think you're looking at The Hurt Locker. I think that Avatar is losing a lot of buzz and The Hurt Locker is a film that has the gravitas that the Oscar voters look for. Kind of reminds me of when Shakespeare in Love knocked off the favourite Saving Private Ryan in 1999.
David: For some reason, some potential voters think Avatar is anti-American, in that it’s the futuristic Americans wanting to destroy what is essentially an Eden-esque third world planet. Others think it a very simplistic but very beautiful looking cartoon (and JC will kill you if you say that in front of him). And other voters just really really don’t want to make JC King of Anything again. Hurt Locker wins the silver naked man.
Andre: I have to also go with The Hurt Locker on this one. My problem with Avatar was that, while the movie looked good and had some cool 3D special effects, the story just didn't do it for me. The Hurt Locker had a loose plot, to be sure, but I thought it was really effective at building and then releasing tension, over and over again. Since Oscar ballots are weighted this year, I'd pick Up In The Air as my second choice. Unlike Tony, I like that the movie didn't end in a neat little wrapped up bow. I enjoyed the ambiguity and in the light of the characters involed, the ending made sense. After that, I'd pick Inglorious Basterds, because who doesn't like to see Nazis get beaten up with baseball bats?
Tony: It's funny, we all agree on The Hurt Locker but none of us are crazy about that pick. Regarding Up In The Air, I think had there been a stronger indication with the ending, it would have won best picture. It didn`t have to have an ending ``all wrapped up in a bow`` which is the classic Hollywood ending. If it had even a hopeful ending it would have been sufficient to provide the sense of narrative satisfaction for the audience. I get the sense Reitmann was afraid of a classic happy ending and by choosing the open ambiguous ending, he may have cost himself the Best Picture Oscar.
David: Something we’re forgetting is this year there are 10 Best Picture nominees as opposed to 5. This was something that they did in the thirties but now seems like a marketing ploy to help overall box office. Is it creating more buzz? No. Some of these films will not win a thing. But will they dilute votes for some of the favorites? The voting is changed too. Instead of just selecting one film, you select your first pick, second pick, and third pick. It’s conceivable that everybody’s third pick film could win Best Picture. So, conceivably something like District 9 could win by a total fluke. And then all hell will break loose.
Andre: Has anyone heard the news stories popping up around The Hurt Locker lately? A producer who actively campaigned for the film by dissing Avatar had his tickets taken away. Some soldier is suing saying that his life's story was the basis of the film. All of this in the two weeks before the Oscars. Is it a sabotage campaign against the film, or just bad luck? Also, I missed my chance to say that The Hurt locker is a really explosive film that delivers more bang for your buck. Look for my new blog, "Groaner Film Reviews" coming soon. It's boffo!
Tony: I have heard that. The guys seems like he`s nuts…even by Hollywood Producer standards. And I want to see the Groaner Film Reviews blog like yesterday. What would be your review of The Wolfman?
Andre: It bleeeeeeewwwwwwww! OR It was a howling good time!
David: This is interesting. If Avatar wins, it will be the highest-grossing Best Picture ever. If Hurt Locker wins, it will be the lowest-grossing Best Picture ever.
Tony: And no matter who wins, Gladiator will still be the least deserving Best Picture ever!
David: I disagree with that. I would argue that The Sound of Music, Gigi, The Greatest Show on Earth, My Fair Lady, Forrest Gump (the other nominees were better), Terms of Endearment (the other nominees were better), Out of Africa (the other nominees were better) were even more least deserving. If you look at what Gladiator was up against, it was a weak year. (anything that won that year would not be very deserving).
Tony: Yeah…well…shut up!
David No...you shut up!
Tony: I feel like this debate has taken a turn. Moving on...
BEST DIRECTOR
Andre: I'm going to regret saying this, but I think Katheryn Bigelow is a lock. Even other directors who are nominated in this category, like James Cameron and Jason Reitman, have said publicly that they'd like her to win. She's won the Director's Guild award, and that's usually a good sign of Oscar victory. Plus, no one wants to see James Cameron jump on on stage and tell everyone "I see you!" or declare himself the king of the world once again.
David: This is where you’ll see who wins the EX-WARS. Avatar will win a Titanic boat-load of technical awards, and look of the film combined with its box-office success has left studios scrambling to change many of their upcoming features into 3-D and IMAX. Avatar is a ground-breaking achievement that will change the movie-going experience forever. It is probably a more complicated exercise in directing than Hurt Locker. And no woman has ever won the directing prize. Still, Bigelow won the Directors Guild Award and only a handful of times has the winner of that not won the Oscar. And I can’t see Best Film not having the Best Director. If an African-American man can be President than a woman can be Best Director. The time they are a-changin’, and about time. Bigelow wins.
Tony: And a woman can be President but only on 24. I agree that the Ex-Wars is an interesting angle here. If I had a vote I would vote for Lee Daniels for Precious but my prediction is that Katheryn Bigelow wins it for The Hurt Locker. She has been doing well winning most of the major director awards this season and I see no change here.
BEST ACTRESS
Tony: Okay so two categories and we all agree. Can we maybe mix it up a little here? If Sandra Bullock wins for The Blind Side she can thank the "long overdue for one" phenomenon for the win. People seem to want to recognize her work and while her performance was very good, it is not in the same category as Meryl Streep's in Julie & Julia. Both Bullock and Streep played real life women. The difference is when I was watching Julie & Julia, I was seeing Julia Child up on the screen. When I watched The Blind Side I knew I was watching Sandra Bullock. Streep should and will win.
David: Is Meryl Streep the greatest actress of all time? Isn’t there anything this woman can’t do? Maybe we should not allow her to act anymore, but make her cure cancer or bring about world peace. She’d probably accomplish both – and with a spot-on accent of some kind. Still, this ain’t gonna be Meryl’s last kick at the can. It might be the only time that Sandy Bullock gets this close to the podium, and she gives her best performance to date. Remember Julia Roberts ditching the romantic comedy stuff and winning for Erin Brockovich? The same thing could happen here. Bullock is the sentimental favorite. However, I do agree with Tony. You’re seeing Sandy Bullock on the screen, with Streep you’re seeing Julia Child. It’s the British way of disappearing completely into a role versus the American way of playing a version of yourself. I would not bet money on this one. I would just say that sometimes….deserves got nothing to do with it.
Andre: Here's why I think Sandra Bullock wins over Meryl Streep in this category. Steep is an amazing actress, probably the best of her generation. But the Academy is no longer primarily made up of members of her generation. The acting part of the Academy is younger than ever and has been handing out Oscars to younger actresses. Sure, Helen Mirren won for The Queen, but in Oscar's defence, it's Helen Mirren. Sure she's nominated this year, but since she won so recently, I doubt she'll win again for a movie no one has seen. Kate Winslet, Reese Witherspoon, Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, and Halle Berry have all won in the past decade. And Meryl Streep has been nominated a record 178 times. Give someone else a turn.
Tony: I tip my hat to David for (a) agreeing with me and (b) referencing Unforgiven in the process. David brings up an interesting point. It seems that more and more there are other political factors in who wins. The gap between who will win and who should win seems to be growing. I'm seeing a lot of "...they'll give it to so and so because they've never won one". I've even heard people say Meryl Streep should not win because she's won enough already. I think if this trend continues it will spell the end of the Oscars credibility. Meryl Streep's performance was so far ahead of Sandra Bullock's that if she does not win I will consider it the greatest Oscar injustice since Ralph Fiennes was passed over for Schindlers list in favor of Tommie Lee Jones. Andre, when you say `give someone else a turn`` are you suggesting they will give someone else a turn or they should give someone else a turn. One name that`s not being mentioned is Carrey Mulligan for An Education. She did an amazing job in a really beautiful film. She deserves more attention than what she is getting.
Andre: Let me be clear. Do I think Sandra Bullock is a better actress than Meryl Streep? No. I like her, though, She's funny and charming and so darned cute. And yes, I'm saying the will give her a turn, not that they should. But don't forget the "Golden Globes" rule; any actress who goes topless in a film increases her chances of winning an Oscar. Halle Berry and Gwyneth Paltrow both showed off their Golden Globes the year they won. I haven't seen enough of the performances to see if any the actress nominees went topless this year. Maybe that'll be the deciding factor.
BEST ACTOR
David: It’s Jeff Bridges’ time. Just like it was Mickey Rourke’s time last year. Oh, wait. Weird things do happen. Morgan Freeman is playing Nelson Mandela and people love George Clooney. Still, this isn’t a case of giving it to Pacino for “Hoo-Ha” just because he’s never won it, or Newman for Color of Money when he really should have got it for The Verdict or a handful of other roles. Bridges is giving one of his best performances ever, even though reviews of the film itself have been mixed. In my opinion, this year for Best Actor, The Dude Will Abide.
Andre: Hey, remember last year when everyone said that grizzled old actor Mickey Roarke was a lock for the Best Actor award? And then remember how Sean Penn won for Milk instead? Does it scare anyone else that grizzled old actor Jeff Bridges is supposedly a lock for this year's award? Could Colin Firth win this year in a second "straight-actor-pays-gay-character" role? Could Jeremy Renner come up the middle in a Hurt Locker sweep? Can I write an entire paragraph made up of questions?
David: Andre brings up and interesting point about Colin Firth. Will gay Academy members give him their votes en masse? Will all the Brits vote for him as he is well liked? Could there be an upset here, the way there was last year with Penn beating Rourke? Bridges has won every award so far except the British Academy Award – where Firth beat him. However, Firth is not known in the States the way Penn is, so for that reason, I think Bridges still wins.
Tony: Pressure from the Gay Mafia notwithstanding, I really feel strongly that this is Jeff Bridges year with his performance in Crazy Heart. The role is one that Oscar loves, The washed up has-been who is inspired by meeting someone who reminds him what it was like when he was great. As you guys both pointed out, Mickey Roarke came close to winning one with a similar archetype with The Wrestler last year. Bridges also benefits from the "long overdue for one" phenomenon which is alive and well with the Oscar voters.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Tony: Mo'Nique. 'nuff said.
David: Agree with Tony. Anytime someone known for comedy pulls a 180 and surprises you with a hidden dramatic performance of devastating power (not to mention fearlessness for not being afraid to appear so monstrous), that person deserves to win. Nuff said.
Andre: I also say Mo'Nique. Why? Name any one of the other supporting actress nominees without Googling it. Take a minute. Can't do it? That's why.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
David: You know it’s absolutely criminal that Christopher Plummer has never been nominated for an Oscar before now. He’s eighty years old for Chrissakes. He definitely should have been nominated many times before and he probably should have won for his performance in The Insider. Well, hopefully he’s happy with the nomination, because unless it’s a sentimental old guy lifetime achievement award disguised as a supporting acting award (see Jack Palance/James Coburn), he ain’t winning. Christoph Waltz has won everything in this category so far and he’s gonna keep rolling over the competition to the Oscar win and eventually world domination.
Andre: If the Oscars are truly meant for rewarding the year's best performances, then yes, Christoph Waltz wins hands down. As soon as I saw Inglorious Basterds, I thought he would win the Oscar in this category. But sometimes, Oscar likes to reward nominees for a lifetime of work. Was Al Pacino's performance in Scent of a Woman Oscar-worthy? Probably not. But his performances as Michael Corleone were, and since he didn't win for those, boo-yah! So this year, there's a chance Christopher Plumber will win. I may be the only person who thinks this, but since he's never even been nominated, they may give him this as a lifetime achievement award. Don't be surprised if they start to say, "And the award goes to Cristoph... er Plumber", and then the Nazi guy has to sit down. After all, who deserves an Oscar more - a Nazi, or a guy who helped his singing children escape from the Nazis? Captain Von Trapp, that's who.
Tony: Here`s why I think it has to be Christoph Waltz. In Inglorious Basterds he acted in four languages (German, French, English, Italian). Now Christopher Plummer has been shafted by the Academy and in any other year I would think they would want to correct this. But how do you not recognize that performance by waltz. Be very surprised if it goes to anyone else.
EPILOGUE
Tony: Well guys that covers six major categories and 2,640 words. I think a solid effort for the first roundtable. I hope we can do this again soon.
David and Andre: Tony, in everyone`s life there is one small snippet of time that defines your entire existance and stands alone above all other life experiences. It goes without saying that for us, this is that life-defining event. We will be forever changed because of it. (Ed. Note: You can probably guess…)
David Widdicombe – An award winning screenwriter and film director from Toronto.
Andre Theriault – Lives in Fredericton, life long cinefile, keen observer of popular culture and my partner in the annual Only Fabulous Oscar Party Thrown By Two Straight Guys.
Tony: Guys, welcome to the roundtable and thank you for joining me.
David and Andre: Thank you for having us, Tony. It is the highest honour simply to be discussing films in your presence (Ed. Note – I am assuming this is what they would say at this point so this isn't an exact quote)
BEST PICTURE
Tony: If you had asked me two months ago I would have said Avatar but right now I think you're looking at The Hurt Locker. I think that Avatar is losing a lot of buzz and The Hurt Locker is a film that has the gravitas that the Oscar voters look for. Kind of reminds me of when Shakespeare in Love knocked off the favourite Saving Private Ryan in 1999.
David: For some reason, some potential voters think Avatar is anti-American, in that it’s the futuristic Americans wanting to destroy what is essentially an Eden-esque third world planet. Others think it a very simplistic but very beautiful looking cartoon (and JC will kill you if you say that in front of him). And other voters just really really don’t want to make JC King of Anything again. Hurt Locker wins the silver naked man.
Andre: I have to also go with The Hurt Locker on this one. My problem with Avatar was that, while the movie looked good and had some cool 3D special effects, the story just didn't do it for me. The Hurt Locker had a loose plot, to be sure, but I thought it was really effective at building and then releasing tension, over and over again. Since Oscar ballots are weighted this year, I'd pick Up In The Air as my second choice. Unlike Tony, I like that the movie didn't end in a neat little wrapped up bow. I enjoyed the ambiguity and in the light of the characters involed, the ending made sense. After that, I'd pick Inglorious Basterds, because who doesn't like to see Nazis get beaten up with baseball bats?
Tony: It's funny, we all agree on The Hurt Locker but none of us are crazy about that pick. Regarding Up In The Air, I think had there been a stronger indication with the ending, it would have won best picture. It didn`t have to have an ending ``all wrapped up in a bow`` which is the classic Hollywood ending. If it had even a hopeful ending it would have been sufficient to provide the sense of narrative satisfaction for the audience. I get the sense Reitmann was afraid of a classic happy ending and by choosing the open ambiguous ending, he may have cost himself the Best Picture Oscar.
David: Something we’re forgetting is this year there are 10 Best Picture nominees as opposed to 5. This was something that they did in the thirties but now seems like a marketing ploy to help overall box office. Is it creating more buzz? No. Some of these films will not win a thing. But will they dilute votes for some of the favorites? The voting is changed too. Instead of just selecting one film, you select your first pick, second pick, and third pick. It’s conceivable that everybody’s third pick film could win Best Picture. So, conceivably something like District 9 could win by a total fluke. And then all hell will break loose.
Andre: Has anyone heard the news stories popping up around The Hurt Locker lately? A producer who actively campaigned for the film by dissing Avatar had his tickets taken away. Some soldier is suing saying that his life's story was the basis of the film. All of this in the two weeks before the Oscars. Is it a sabotage campaign against the film, or just bad luck? Also, I missed my chance to say that The Hurt locker is a really explosive film that delivers more bang for your buck. Look for my new blog, "Groaner Film Reviews" coming soon. It's boffo!
Tony: I have heard that. The guys seems like he`s nuts…even by Hollywood Producer standards. And I want to see the Groaner Film Reviews blog like yesterday. What would be your review of The Wolfman?
Andre: It bleeeeeeewwwwwwww! OR It was a howling good time!
David: This is interesting. If Avatar wins, it will be the highest-grossing Best Picture ever. If Hurt Locker wins, it will be the lowest-grossing Best Picture ever.
Tony: And no matter who wins, Gladiator will still be the least deserving Best Picture ever!
David: I disagree with that. I would argue that The Sound of Music, Gigi, The Greatest Show on Earth, My Fair Lady, Forrest Gump (the other nominees were better), Terms of Endearment (the other nominees were better), Out of Africa (the other nominees were better) were even more least deserving. If you look at what Gladiator was up against, it was a weak year. (anything that won that year would not be very deserving).
Tony: Yeah…well…shut up!
David No...you shut up!
Tony: I feel like this debate has taken a turn. Moving on...
BEST DIRECTOR
Andre: I'm going to regret saying this, but I think Katheryn Bigelow is a lock. Even other directors who are nominated in this category, like James Cameron and Jason Reitman, have said publicly that they'd like her to win. She's won the Director's Guild award, and that's usually a good sign of Oscar victory. Plus, no one wants to see James Cameron jump on on stage and tell everyone "I see you!" or declare himself the king of the world once again.
David: This is where you’ll see who wins the EX-WARS. Avatar will win a Titanic boat-load of technical awards, and look of the film combined with its box-office success has left studios scrambling to change many of their upcoming features into 3-D and IMAX. Avatar is a ground-breaking achievement that will change the movie-going experience forever. It is probably a more complicated exercise in directing than Hurt Locker. And no woman has ever won the directing prize. Still, Bigelow won the Directors Guild Award and only a handful of times has the winner of that not won the Oscar. And I can’t see Best Film not having the Best Director. If an African-American man can be President than a woman can be Best Director. The time they are a-changin’, and about time. Bigelow wins.
Tony: And a woman can be President but only on 24. I agree that the Ex-Wars is an interesting angle here. If I had a vote I would vote for Lee Daniels for Precious but my prediction is that Katheryn Bigelow wins it for The Hurt Locker. She has been doing well winning most of the major director awards this season and I see no change here.
BEST ACTRESS
Tony: Okay so two categories and we all agree. Can we maybe mix it up a little here? If Sandra Bullock wins for The Blind Side she can thank the "long overdue for one" phenomenon for the win. People seem to want to recognize her work and while her performance was very good, it is not in the same category as Meryl Streep's in Julie & Julia. Both Bullock and Streep played real life women. The difference is when I was watching Julie & Julia, I was seeing Julia Child up on the screen. When I watched The Blind Side I knew I was watching Sandra Bullock. Streep should and will win.
David: Is Meryl Streep the greatest actress of all time? Isn’t there anything this woman can’t do? Maybe we should not allow her to act anymore, but make her cure cancer or bring about world peace. She’d probably accomplish both – and with a spot-on accent of some kind. Still, this ain’t gonna be Meryl’s last kick at the can. It might be the only time that Sandy Bullock gets this close to the podium, and she gives her best performance to date. Remember Julia Roberts ditching the romantic comedy stuff and winning for Erin Brockovich? The same thing could happen here. Bullock is the sentimental favorite. However, I do agree with Tony. You’re seeing Sandy Bullock on the screen, with Streep you’re seeing Julia Child. It’s the British way of disappearing completely into a role versus the American way of playing a version of yourself. I would not bet money on this one. I would just say that sometimes….deserves got nothing to do with it.
Andre: Here's why I think Sandra Bullock wins over Meryl Streep in this category. Steep is an amazing actress, probably the best of her generation. But the Academy is no longer primarily made up of members of her generation. The acting part of the Academy is younger than ever and has been handing out Oscars to younger actresses. Sure, Helen Mirren won for The Queen, but in Oscar's defence, it's Helen Mirren. Sure she's nominated this year, but since she won so recently, I doubt she'll win again for a movie no one has seen. Kate Winslet, Reese Witherspoon, Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, and Halle Berry have all won in the past decade. And Meryl Streep has been nominated a record 178 times. Give someone else a turn.
Tony: I tip my hat to David for (a) agreeing with me and (b) referencing Unforgiven in the process. David brings up an interesting point. It seems that more and more there are other political factors in who wins. The gap between who will win and who should win seems to be growing. I'm seeing a lot of "...they'll give it to so and so because they've never won one". I've even heard people say Meryl Streep should not win because she's won enough already. I think if this trend continues it will spell the end of the Oscars credibility. Meryl Streep's performance was so far ahead of Sandra Bullock's that if she does not win I will consider it the greatest Oscar injustice since Ralph Fiennes was passed over for Schindlers list in favor of Tommie Lee Jones. Andre, when you say `give someone else a turn`` are you suggesting they will give someone else a turn or they should give someone else a turn. One name that`s not being mentioned is Carrey Mulligan for An Education. She did an amazing job in a really beautiful film. She deserves more attention than what she is getting.
Andre: Let me be clear. Do I think Sandra Bullock is a better actress than Meryl Streep? No. I like her, though, She's funny and charming and so darned cute. And yes, I'm saying the will give her a turn, not that they should. But don't forget the "Golden Globes" rule; any actress who goes topless in a film increases her chances of winning an Oscar. Halle Berry and Gwyneth Paltrow both showed off their Golden Globes the year they won. I haven't seen enough of the performances to see if any the actress nominees went topless this year. Maybe that'll be the deciding factor.
BEST ACTOR
David: It’s Jeff Bridges’ time. Just like it was Mickey Rourke’s time last year. Oh, wait. Weird things do happen. Morgan Freeman is playing Nelson Mandela and people love George Clooney. Still, this isn’t a case of giving it to Pacino for “Hoo-Ha” just because he’s never won it, or Newman for Color of Money when he really should have got it for The Verdict or a handful of other roles. Bridges is giving one of his best performances ever, even though reviews of the film itself have been mixed. In my opinion, this year for Best Actor, The Dude Will Abide.
Andre: Hey, remember last year when everyone said that grizzled old actor Mickey Roarke was a lock for the Best Actor award? And then remember how Sean Penn won for Milk instead? Does it scare anyone else that grizzled old actor Jeff Bridges is supposedly a lock for this year's award? Could Colin Firth win this year in a second "straight-actor-pays-gay-character" role? Could Jeremy Renner come up the middle in a Hurt Locker sweep? Can I write an entire paragraph made up of questions?
David: Andre brings up and interesting point about Colin Firth. Will gay Academy members give him their votes en masse? Will all the Brits vote for him as he is well liked? Could there be an upset here, the way there was last year with Penn beating Rourke? Bridges has won every award so far except the British Academy Award – where Firth beat him. However, Firth is not known in the States the way Penn is, so for that reason, I think Bridges still wins.
Tony: Pressure from the Gay Mafia notwithstanding, I really feel strongly that this is Jeff Bridges year with his performance in Crazy Heart. The role is one that Oscar loves, The washed up has-been who is inspired by meeting someone who reminds him what it was like when he was great. As you guys both pointed out, Mickey Roarke came close to winning one with a similar archetype with The Wrestler last year. Bridges also benefits from the "long overdue for one" phenomenon which is alive and well with the Oscar voters.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Tony: Mo'Nique. 'nuff said.
David: Agree with Tony. Anytime someone known for comedy pulls a 180 and surprises you with a hidden dramatic performance of devastating power (not to mention fearlessness for not being afraid to appear so monstrous), that person deserves to win. Nuff said.
Andre: I also say Mo'Nique. Why? Name any one of the other supporting actress nominees without Googling it. Take a minute. Can't do it? That's why.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
David: You know it’s absolutely criminal that Christopher Plummer has never been nominated for an Oscar before now. He’s eighty years old for Chrissakes. He definitely should have been nominated many times before and he probably should have won for his performance in The Insider. Well, hopefully he’s happy with the nomination, because unless it’s a sentimental old guy lifetime achievement award disguised as a supporting acting award (see Jack Palance/James Coburn), he ain’t winning. Christoph Waltz has won everything in this category so far and he’s gonna keep rolling over the competition to the Oscar win and eventually world domination.
Andre: If the Oscars are truly meant for rewarding the year's best performances, then yes, Christoph Waltz wins hands down. As soon as I saw Inglorious Basterds, I thought he would win the Oscar in this category. But sometimes, Oscar likes to reward nominees for a lifetime of work. Was Al Pacino's performance in Scent of a Woman Oscar-worthy? Probably not. But his performances as Michael Corleone were, and since he didn't win for those, boo-yah! So this year, there's a chance Christopher Plumber will win. I may be the only person who thinks this, but since he's never even been nominated, they may give him this as a lifetime achievement award. Don't be surprised if they start to say, "And the award goes to Cristoph... er Plumber", and then the Nazi guy has to sit down. After all, who deserves an Oscar more - a Nazi, or a guy who helped his singing children escape from the Nazis? Captain Von Trapp, that's who.
Tony: Here`s why I think it has to be Christoph Waltz. In Inglorious Basterds he acted in four languages (German, French, English, Italian). Now Christopher Plummer has been shafted by the Academy and in any other year I would think they would want to correct this. But how do you not recognize that performance by waltz. Be very surprised if it goes to anyone else.
EPILOGUE
Tony: Well guys that covers six major categories and 2,640 words. I think a solid effort for the first roundtable. I hope we can do this again soon.
David and Andre: Tony, in everyone`s life there is one small snippet of time that defines your entire existance and stands alone above all other life experiences. It goes without saying that for us, this is that life-defining event. We will be forever changed because of it. (Ed. Note: You can probably guess…)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Apologies to Dead Heat
I feel like I owe the film Dead Heat an apology after citing it in my review of Cop Out as an example of a forgettable buddy cop film. The movie I meant to cite was "Red Heat" in which James Belushi plays a tough Chicago Cop and Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Soviet cop. Dead Heat was nothing to write home about but was not nearly the steaming pile of dog excrement that was "Red Heat".
I will edit the blog to correct this mistake but for those who have already read it, I apologize for the mistake. To Dead Heat I apologize once more.
And to Red Heat, I apologize for nothing! You suck!
I will edit the blog to correct this mistake but for those who have already read it, I apologize for the mistake. To Dead Heat I apologize once more.
And to Red Heat, I apologize for nothing! You suck!
Cop Out
In the opening scene of Kevin Smith’s buddy cop film, Cop Out, Detective Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan) explains to his partner that his interrogation techniques are homage to famous movies. Of course, Hodges repeatedly mispronounces it HOMM-age. This bit is there in part to set up the subsequent sequence where Hodges gets information from a suspect by quoting nearly every movie released in the last 25 years. My personal favorite was including the line “Nobody puts baby in a corner” in a police interrogation. But I think there is something more significant to introducing the concept of homage at the very outset of this movie. This film is itself homage to the 80’s cop movies that were staples of my movie-going adolescence.
So what is the net result? Basically it breaks down like this:
The good news for Kevin Smith – Cop Out is a recognizable homage to 80’s buddy cop films.
The bad news for Kevin Smith – Cop Out is a recognizable homage to 80’s buddy cop films.
We tend to forget that not all of those films that fell into that genre were classics. Most of them weren’t really that good. For every 48 Hours (1982) and Lethal Weapon (1987) that I loved, I had to sit through fifteen like Red Heat (1988, James Belushi, Arnold Schwarzenegger). These boasted cookie cutter plotlines involving a foreign drug Kingpin that ended with a showdown where the cops picked off the Kingpin’s henchmen in ascending order of importance before killing the head honcho himself after a tense stand-off.
So while there is not as much depth to this movie as I might have hoped, I think the critics who have trashed it have missed the boat. There is a lot that I thought was very well done in this movie. Just when I thought I had seen everything that Seann William Scott had to offer, he raised his game significantly in this film. Scott plays a type of cat burglar who swipes the extremely valuable baseball card owned by Hodges partner Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis). Hodges and Monroe later catch Scott’s character and the three share car ride that provides some solid laughs. Laughs that I don’t believe were in the script but rather came from the genuine chemistry that Scott and Morgan had onscreen.
This is important because Morgan and Willis had zero chemistry on the screen. At best you could describe Willis’ performance as understated. In reality though, you were watching an actor going through the motions simply to pick up a paycheck. This was the least engaging I have ever seen Bruce Willis in a film and when he is the dead fish up on the screen, you know there is something very wrong happening here. It is unfortunate because those who shared the screen with him did a nice job by and large. I liked the duo of Kevin Pollack and Adam Brody who played the in house police rivals to Hodges and Monroe. The first time we see the four of them together on screen produces some genuine laughs. I wish Pollack and Brody had more screen time in the film.
Also falling into that category was Rashida Jones who played Hodges’ devoted and loving wife. Jones is luminescent on the screen and captures your attention in every scene she is in. Sadly Jones came off as underutilized here in a script that required nothing more of her than to assure her over-the-top jealous husband that she was not having an affair. It seemed like she did that five or six times throughout the movie. I kept waiting for the big payoff to this elaborate setup and when the end credits finally rolled, I was disappointed to say the least.
Much has been made by the fact that this is Kevin Smith’s first studio film from a script he did not write. I think if Smith made a misstep with Cop Out it’s not giving it more of a feeling of being a Kevin Smith film. Smith has made his career by combining broad and even juvenile comedy with sensitive and poignant young adult drama. Chasing Amy and Dogma were perhaps two of his finest examples of this touch. Cop Out doesn’t have that second layer that makes us care deeply for his characters. Jimmy Monroe needs to get his baseball card back so he can pay for his daughter’s wedding. Paul Hodges is afraid his wife is having an affair. This is as deep as this movie gets in developing it main characters. For this I lay the blame with the screenwriters and not Smith himself. I think this movie would have been better off with the Kevin Smith re-write of this script. We would have had all that works in the love letter to 80’s cop films along with some much need character development.
In the end, Smith gets pretty much all he can out of this premise and script, given the fact that Willis’ charisma was AWOL during the entire film. There is a plot that while thin and predictable does hold together from beginning til end. There are nice moments with Sean William Scott where we see how much fun this genre can be. The movie was intended to be silly fun with the prerequisite cop scenes that won’t make you think too hard and in that context, it delivers on its promise.
Circumstances Under Which To See This Movie: While out on a long walk on the beach you trip over something which turns out to be a magic lantern containing a genie. He grants you your one wish which is to be a thirteen year old boy. You then find yourself wanting to see a movie you would appreciate with your new found perspective and taste. Under these circumstances I would suggest seeing Cop Out.
So what is the net result? Basically it breaks down like this:
The good news for Kevin Smith – Cop Out is a recognizable homage to 80’s buddy cop films.
The bad news for Kevin Smith – Cop Out is a recognizable homage to 80’s buddy cop films.
We tend to forget that not all of those films that fell into that genre were classics. Most of them weren’t really that good. For every 48 Hours (1982) and Lethal Weapon (1987) that I loved, I had to sit through fifteen like Red Heat (1988, James Belushi, Arnold Schwarzenegger). These boasted cookie cutter plotlines involving a foreign drug Kingpin that ended with a showdown where the cops picked off the Kingpin’s henchmen in ascending order of importance before killing the head honcho himself after a tense stand-off.
So while there is not as much depth to this movie as I might have hoped, I think the critics who have trashed it have missed the boat. There is a lot that I thought was very well done in this movie. Just when I thought I had seen everything that Seann William Scott had to offer, he raised his game significantly in this film. Scott plays a type of cat burglar who swipes the extremely valuable baseball card owned by Hodges partner Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis). Hodges and Monroe later catch Scott’s character and the three share car ride that provides some solid laughs. Laughs that I don’t believe were in the script but rather came from the genuine chemistry that Scott and Morgan had onscreen.
This is important because Morgan and Willis had zero chemistry on the screen. At best you could describe Willis’ performance as understated. In reality though, you were watching an actor going through the motions simply to pick up a paycheck. This was the least engaging I have ever seen Bruce Willis in a film and when he is the dead fish up on the screen, you know there is something very wrong happening here. It is unfortunate because those who shared the screen with him did a nice job by and large. I liked the duo of Kevin Pollack and Adam Brody who played the in house police rivals to Hodges and Monroe. The first time we see the four of them together on screen produces some genuine laughs. I wish Pollack and Brody had more screen time in the film.
Also falling into that category was Rashida Jones who played Hodges’ devoted and loving wife. Jones is luminescent on the screen and captures your attention in every scene she is in. Sadly Jones came off as underutilized here in a script that required nothing more of her than to assure her over-the-top jealous husband that she was not having an affair. It seemed like she did that five or six times throughout the movie. I kept waiting for the big payoff to this elaborate setup and when the end credits finally rolled, I was disappointed to say the least.
Much has been made by the fact that this is Kevin Smith’s first studio film from a script he did not write. I think if Smith made a misstep with Cop Out it’s not giving it more of a feeling of being a Kevin Smith film. Smith has made his career by combining broad and even juvenile comedy with sensitive and poignant young adult drama. Chasing Amy and Dogma were perhaps two of his finest examples of this touch. Cop Out doesn’t have that second layer that makes us care deeply for his characters. Jimmy Monroe needs to get his baseball card back so he can pay for his daughter’s wedding. Paul Hodges is afraid his wife is having an affair. This is as deep as this movie gets in developing it main characters. For this I lay the blame with the screenwriters and not Smith himself. I think this movie would have been better off with the Kevin Smith re-write of this script. We would have had all that works in the love letter to 80’s cop films along with some much need character development.
In the end, Smith gets pretty much all he can out of this premise and script, given the fact that Willis’ charisma was AWOL during the entire film. There is a plot that while thin and predictable does hold together from beginning til end. There are nice moments with Sean William Scott where we see how much fun this genre can be. The movie was intended to be silly fun with the prerequisite cop scenes that won’t make you think too hard and in that context, it delivers on its promise.
Circumstances Under Which To See This Movie: While out on a long walk on the beach you trip over something which turns out to be a magic lantern containing a genie. He grants you your one wish which is to be a thirteen year old boy. You then find yourself wanting to see a movie you would appreciate with your new found perspective and taste. Under these circumstances I would suggest seeing Cop Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)